Economic concerns and growing disenchantment with both parties is draining support for Trump among Gen Z young men, a key bloc of support during the 2024 election
Male Gen Z voters are breaking with Donald Trump and the Republican party at large, recent polls show, less than a year after this same cohort defied convention and made a surprise shift right, helping Trump win the 2024 election.
Taken with wider polling suggesting Democrats will lead in the midterms, the findings on young men spell serious trouble for the Republican Party in 2026.
Younger Gen Z men, those born between 2002 and 2007, may be even more anti-Trump, according to October research from YouGov and the Young Men’s Research Project, a potential sign that their time living through the social upheavals of the Covid pandemic and not being political aware during the first Trump administration may be shaping their experience.
I kinda hate the premise that young age automatically makes you stupid or your opinions a result of manipulation. Someone in their 60s can be just as stupid as a 22yo, and a 22yo is also capable of having nuanced thoughts about politics and taxation. “Young=naive” is a bad trap to fall into when evaluating political opinions and feeds into the old adage about people becoming conservative as they get older.
I think this person is just stupid on their own, regardless of their age.
My friend, when I was 22 I didn’t make enough to pay taxes. You’re getting downvoted because you’re defensive, aggro, and misunderstanding the premise.
Very few people on Lemmy believe you’re actually stupid because you’re young. Often times just uninformed and, per your example, impulsive. “Young=naive” tends to be a regressive position. I think you’ll find Lemmy is typically a progressive website. Most of us left reddit over ideological/enshitification differences not because we were too radically right. .ml is among the exceptions.
Anyway the premise isn’t 22 year olds are too dumb to worry about taxes.
Instead the premise is that you’re too poor to worry about taxes. That’s not to say you can’t or shouldn’t but you likely won’t have anything worth taxing at that age. If you do have things worth taxing that young you either have inherited well, I’m sorry for your loss, or you are offspring of the 1%-0.0001% and were born with a silver spoon. Otherwise you’re the lowest on the totem pole and it’s been proven throughout the millennials growing up that you’re not going to get ahead if the status quo remains as it is. In theory you should be looking for the most radical change because you’ll see the greatest benefit over your lifetime.
Anyway my friend, chill, touch grass and have a lovely day.
And when it comes time to worry about taxes worth less about how much you’re paying and instead what you’re getting out of it. Paying taxes is pretty sweet when you get stuff in return like healthcare, schools, parks, places to get out and do things that don’t cost money, transit investment, bridges that don’t fall down. Taxes only such when you can’t see the impact it has in your life…like this moment in history right now where the rich own the government and want more money from us to improve their lives.
I think this is a more nuanced take on the situation. I would agree that folks who are directly impacted by an issue are more likely to be impacted by it. Original comment seemed too absolutist too me.
I think there are 22yo who can be impacted by the issue of taxes while being poor (Though they may end up on the other side of the argument). For example, issues of food stamps and medicare-for-all affect all ages. A 22yo might have a strong opinion in favor of taxation for these purposes. A conservative making an ad hominem argument on the basis of age in this case (e.g., that they are simply being manipulated by the radical left) would be clearly incorrect.
I also think, as more of a moral argument, you shouldn’t need to be directly impacted by something in order to support/oppose it. I am not on food stamps but I absolutely think we should have them (or perhaps “upgrade” it to UBI to avoid nonsense on what poor people are allowed to buy).
In any case, dismissing someone as simply being manipulated is not a good approach in general. It could be a good approach when we are specifically talking about the person overselling on confirmation bias from ChatGPT, but it is a poor way to change minds as a general tactic.
Is there any particular language I should adjust to avoid being “aggro”? I did say that I hated their argument. And I did call them hostile after their last sarcastic response to me trying to extend an olive branch.
Is that going too far? “Touch grass” is about the same level, I would think, but I’ve been wrong before and I’ll be wrong again.
There was no premise of anyone is stupid or not - I simply mean that early twenties voters are by and large concerned with social issues since they very likely don’t ow property yet. So to me, this feels like Faux russian news leading kids around with a hate carrot on a fascism stick
I suppose I did simplify your argument.
I’ll restate, then: it’s erroneous to say that any young person/22yo with a strong opinion on taxes is being manipulated. Although life experience may prevent naivete in some cases, I think it’s incorrect to make a bold assertion like that because older folks are capable of being manipulated and younger folks are capable of being discerning and having the critical thinking skills to avoid manipulation.
I would also take issue with your follow up on whether owning property impacts whether or not someone’s opinions on economic issues are well defined. I don’t think people need to be personally invested in an issue to have a nuanced opinion on it, though it can certainly help (and you definitely want to consider interested parties when it comes to property tax- i.e., before a city raises property taxes, they should take into consideration property owners with fixed incomes, who do tend to be 60+)
I get that you were just making a short comment and didn’t intend to go deep into the weeds on it, but I find these kinds of assumptions dangerous.
You did simplify, correct. I wouldn’t call it an accurate simplification, either. Thanks for clarifying that your assumption was out of turn
If you enter into debates with weak ad hominem arguments about someone’s age, you aren’t going to change minds and you will be steamrolled by anyone with an understanding of the topic.
Skimming your recent posts, I don’t think our political views are particularly different, so it’s in both of our interests if you are using the best arguments possible on these topics. This was not an attack on you as a person, so your hostile response is unnecessary.